Tag Archives: Google

A blogger known for his atheist views has been stabbed to death in Bangladesh, in the latest of a series of attacks on independent writers in the developing south Asian nation.

Washiqur Rahman, 27, died of serious injuries inflicted in the assault on Monday morning in Dhaka, the capital.

Police have arrested two men for the murder, which comes just weeks after an American atheist blogger was killed in Dhaka, in a crime that triggered international outrage.

Local police chief Wahidul Islam told Agence France-Presse the victim had been “brutally hacked to death this morning with big knives just 500 yards [460 metres] from his home at Dhaka’s Begunbari area”.

Islam said the two detained men were arrested immediately after the attack as they tried to flee the scene.

The suspects have so far been identified only as Zikrullah, said to be a student at a religious school near the city of Chittagong, and Ariful Islam, who police say was studying at the Darul Ulum religious school in Dhaka. Police are hunting a third man.

“Those who killed him differed on his ideologies about religion. He was not an atheist. He was a believer. But the way he followed religion was different from the way radical groups insist,” Biplob Kumar Sarkar, deputy commissioner of the Dhaka Metropolitan police, told the Guardian.

However, Tamanna Setu, a friend of Rahman said: “He used to write a satirical column on facebook about against believers. He was an atheist. His killing has to be connected to his writing,”

One social media activist said that he used to write “against religious fundamentalism”.

“It appeared Rahman used to write using a pen name, Kutshit Hasher Chhana [Ugly Duckling],” Imran Sarker, head of the Blogger and Online Activists Network in Bangladesh, said. “He was a progressive free thinker and was against religious fundamentalism.”

Ibrahim Khalil, a fellow blogger who knew Rahman through events they organised, said Rahman was a “progressive” who wrote against religious extremism and repression of ethnic minorities.

“I can say he was a very humble man,” Khalil said.

The Dhaka Tribune reported that the dead man was a member of eight Facebook group pages including Atheist Bangladesh.

Rahman, who worked at a travel agency as an IT manager, is the third such blogger to have been murdered in the Muslim-majority country in the past two years.
Atheist blogger Avijit Roy ‘was not just a person … he was a movement’
Read more
Police have also arrested a suspect over the killing in February of American atheist writer and blogger Avijit Roy.

Roy, an engineer of Bangladeshi origin, was killed by machete-wielding assailants near Dhaka University as he and his wife were returning from a book fair last month. His wife, Rafida Bonya Ahmed, suffered head injuries and lost a finger. She later returned to the US for treatment.

Advertisement

“While Avijit and I were being ruthlessly attacked, the local police stood close by and did not act,” Rafida told Reuters.

Roy’s death sparked uproar at home and abroad, with hundreds of secular activists protesting for days to demand justice. They also criticised the country’s government for not doing enough to protect secularist writers.

An adviser to Sheikh Hasina, the prime minister, appeared in comments earlier this month to pass the blame for the murder of Roy on to the police.

“Identify the black sheep among the force and bring them under law and justice to uphold your image,” HT Imam told senior officers.

A suspect in the killing, named as Farabi Shafiur Rahman, had previously threatened Roy several times, including on Facebook, where he said Roy would be killed upon his arrival in Dhaka. Rahman was arrested in 2013 for making threats to a cleric for administering Islamic funeral rites to another atheist blogger, Ahmed Rajib Haider, who was murdered.
Bangladesh seeking police ‘black sheep’ on duty when US blogger was killed
Read more
Media group Reporters Without Borders rated Bangladesh 146th among 180 countries in a ranking of press freedom last year.

In 2004, assailants attacked Bangladeshi writer Humayun Azad, also with machetes. Azad survived the attack, but died in mysterious circumstances later that year in Germany, where he had gone on an academic visit.

Political violence in recent months has claimed the lives of more than 100 people and left hundreds more injured. Clashes have pitted activists from the opposition Bangladesh Nationalist party (BNP), which boycotted general elections a year ago, and other parties against security forces. The latest protests have been called by Khaleda Zia, leader of the BNP, who wants Hasina to resign and call fresh polls. Hasina has said her government would remain in office until her term ends in 2019. Allies of the BNP include Islamist parties.

The country of more than 160 million people has struggled to resolve profound disagreements over the role of religion in politics and society in recent years.

by Seth

Fast growth comes from overwhelming the smallest possible audience with a product or service that so delights that they insist that their friends and colleagues use it. And hypergrowth is a version of the same thing, except those friends and colleagues quickly become even bigger fans, and tell even more people.

Often, we get sidetracked when we forget about “smallest possible.” If you make the audience you’re initially serving too big, you will dilute the very thing you set out to make, avoid critical mass, and compromise the magic of what you’re building. You’ll make average stuff for average people instead of something powerful for the few.

By “smallest possible” I don’t mean, “too small.” I mean the smallest number that eventually leads to the kernel of conversation that enables you to grow.

Millions of consumers no longer visit a bank to deposit checks or conduct financial transactions. Instead they rely on the convenience of using their mobile devices to send money, view account balances and bank online.

The same is true for how they spend their money – the shift from brick and mortar to e-commerce to m-commerce is already well underway. Think about it – how many times do you use your smartphone to research a product or purchase one?

Maybe you’re going out to dinner tonight and you’ve already filled your Apple Pay, Google Wallet or other wallet technology with all of your credit-card information. Ever wonder if you could be pickpocketed wirelessly? Could an app you trust already be stealing your personally identifiable information (PII)? Sadly, the answer is yes.

Many financial institutions and retailers have launched mobile apps in the past 18 months to respond to demands from their customers who want the convenience of 24-hour, anytime/anywhere banking and shopping. Mobile banking apps help build customer loyalty, and mobile-banking transactions are significantly cheaper for banks compared with transactions that require employee interaction.

Mobile-retail apps capture consumers’ buying impulse at the moment they occur, and allow for easy comparison shopping – the potential for finding an item cheaper is a quick tap away. Because more and more banks and retailers are making the investment to develop a mobile app, having one has gone from being a competitive differentiator to a “must have” to compete for consumers’ business.

And once a bank has made that investment, there is a concerted effort to encourage customers to use their mobile-banking platform. The same holds true for retail. Amazon and others will do anything to get you to shop online from your smartphone or your tablet.

But the growth of mobile banking and retail apps also means that more people are at risk for identity theft and the hacking of sensitive personal and transaction data by cyber criminals who plan to commit fraud. These apps are used on devices that often aren’t safeguarded from security holes. Most people have between 30 and 75 apps on their mobile device, and of course, when apps are installed on a device, users must grant multiple permissions for accessing a device’s location, SMS capabilities, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, camera and other device resources.

Some of these resources are used for the apps to do their intended task, but often apps demand resources that can open up a device to security vulnerabilities. Unfortunately, when consumers install an app on their mobile devices, few of them read all the permissions the app requests to make sure it isn’t asking to use device resources that might be suspicious.

This issue is highlighted by a report from Gartner Inc., the technology research company, which concluded 75 percent of apps in the major app stores fail basic security tests. Gartner defines this as an app using mobile-device resources that have nothing to do with the intended function of the app. Rather they can be used to eavesdrop on other apps that are running concurrently to collect data about the consumer. The rationale is that the collected information can be used for data analytics to help with targeted mobile advertising.

However, this has given cyber criminals a rather large attack vector to commit ID Fraud by using malware that looks like trustworthy apps to steal PII and financial transaction data from mobile banking apps, or to steal your credit-card information from your retail apps that reside on the same mobile device. This type of malware disguised as “trusted” apps has hundreds of millions of downloads from the major app stores.

Worse yet, this new form of malware is undetected by anti-virus and able to circumvent encryption, biometrics, tokenization, sandboxes and authentication. The result is that using mobile-banking apps to conduct transactions is similar to using an ATM to withdraw cash in a dangerous area with criminals lurking around, or handing your credit card to a stranger, in public, who is using the old-fashioned carbon copy credit card imprinter to take your order.

Another popular technique for cyber criminals is spear-phishing attacks – which take the form of email and text messages that appear to be from an official source or someone you know, usually garnered via a social-networking site. These messages can then install monitoring software covertly on the mobile device. Monitoring software can access most mobile device activity and resources, thereby stealing consumer data just like the malware downloaded from an app store.

Most consumers are unaware of these types of threats, and even when they are aware, they don’t take actions to protect their security and privacy until it is too late. On the other hand, financial institutions carry the liability associated with the fraud that results from data stolen from mobile banking and retail apps. In a U.S. landscape where almost 1 billion PII records have been compromised and there is identity fraud totaling $24.7 billion in losses – according to statistics from Privacyrights.org and the Department of Justice – greater safeguards are needed to protect consumers’ financial data.

At the same time, it is important not to intrude or detract from consumers’ mobile banking or retail experiences. Financial institutions and retailers can’t solely depend on consumer awareness and training, nor can they make it complicated for consumers to protect themselves.

For better or worse, the modern-day consumer has become enamored with using their mobile devices for apps such as social networks, location-based services, and games on the same device on which they want to do mobile banking and mobile commerce, thereby compromising their security and privacy. What financial institutions and retailers need is new, innovative security technologies that deliver an optimal balance between protecting consumer data and being un-intrusive to consumers’ total mobile-device experience.

In this way, their mobile banking and mCommerce apps can operate in a safe and trusted environment even when multiple applications are running concurrently. By working with companies that specialize in these types of new security technologies designed to thwart zero-day threats and malicious eavesdropping apps, financial institutions and retailers will not only protect themselves from liabilities, they will also be successful at convincing more of their customers to use mobile banking and mobile commerce, thereby increasing the ROI of their mobile-app investment and their operating efficiency.

Finally, as we look forward to what many believe will be the rapid adoption of mWallets in 2015, you must understand that they are inherently insecure because they operate on already infected devices. It’s time to take a completely radical, proactive approach to securing consumers’ data as the financial, transaction-based world shifts onto our smartphones and tablets.

This year marks the beginning of a new wave of enablement, opportunity and mCrime. Where there is mobile banking, mCommerce and mWallet there will be mCrime. Assume it comes in the apps as innocent as that flashlight app you recently installed, because if you don’t, you’ll be left in the dark missing your identity and your wallet.

Mark joined Snoopwall with a 30-year track record of successful sales in the high-tech industry, generating over a half billion dollars in revenues. His expertise includes successful customer and market development in the mobile, CE, and telecommunications market sectors. He has a long track record of leading successful sales campaigns and developing business at major accounts like Samsung, Microsoft, Philips, Canon, Nikon, Thomson, Cisco, Alcatel, Siemens, and Compaq.

Utilizing road kill is a tricky subject. We’ve seen recycled squirrel decanters before, and even had discussions on whether eating roadkill is vegan or veganish. The result was always heated debate. Now a crew of rogue Scottish brewers will surely add fuel to the fire, serving their record breaking 55% beer in dead squirrels and stoats. But you’ll never guess the price tag. (Nor believe the rather unlikely story about why it’s being done.)Scottish brewers BrewDog were already well known for pushing boundaries. Having previously brewed the 32% Tactical Nuclear Penguin and the 41% Sink the Bismarck!, the crew decided to break records once again with the 55% concoction known as The End of History.

But as the BBC reports, not content with pushing alcohol boundaries, BrewDog decided to push taste boundaries too—serving their beer in taxidermied squirrels and stoats(reportedly roadkill). The result has been some controversy, with a group called Advocates for Animals describing the project as “pointless and […] very negative”, and Alcohol Focus Scotland warning that their focus on high alcohol beers sends out the wrong message about drinking responsibly. (Presumably the group is also opposed to whiskey.)

I must admit, I find the whole idea of drinking beer from a dead squirrel disgusting, and more than a little pointless. But from an animal rights or an environmental standpoint, I can’t see what the fuss is about. After all, worrying about the “dignity” of a dead roadkill squirrel seems to be a case of projecting our values on the animal kingdom. You could even argue that brewing 55% ABV beer cuts down on glass waste, but I guess that would be pushing it.

What I do find crazy is the price tag on one of these beers—a bottle (or squirrel?) of which will set you back 500GBP (about US$750)!

In case you are wondering, the name of the beer is a tribute to philosopher Francis Fukuyama:

“The beer is the last high abv beer we are going to brew, the end point of our research into how far the can push the boundaries of extreme brewing, the end of beer.”

CEO Howard Schultz is encouraging his employees to bring up the hot-button issue — his latest foray into controversial topics.

Starbucks SBUX0.15% CEO Howard Schultz has never shied away from involving his company in controversial debates, whether those debates are about same-sex marriage, or gun control, or U.S. government gridlock.

But the executive, who oversees a coffee empire with 4,700 U.S. stores, has now taken on arguably the most polarizing political debate in the United States: race relations.

Starbucks published a full page ad in the New York Timeson Sunday — a stark, black, page with a tiny caption “Shall We Overcome?” in the middle, and the words “RaceTogether” with the company logo, on the bottom right. The ad, along with a similar one on Monday in USA Today, is part of an initiative launched this week by the coffee store chain to stimulate conversation and debate about the race in America by getting employees to engage with customers about the perennially hot button subject.

Beginning on Monday, Starbucks baristas will have the option as they serve customers to hand cups on which they’ve handwritten the words “Race Together” and start a discussion about race. This Friday, each copy of USA Today— which has a daily print circulation of almost 2 million and is a partner of Starbucks in this initiative — will have the first of a series of insert with information about race relations, including a variety of perspectives on race. Starbucks coffee shops will also stock the insert.

In a video addressing Starbucks’ nearly 200,000 workers, 40% of whom are members of a racial minority, Schultz dismissed the notion that race was too hot a topic business-wise for Starbucks to tackle.

“I reject that. I reject that completely,” he said in the video address. “It’s an emotional issue. But it is so vitally important to the country,” he continued, pointing to that the United States is “so much better” than what the current state of race relations portray it to be.

The initiative follows several months of consultations with employees that started in December, in part as a result of protests that roiled several U.S. cities after grand juries declined to indict white police officers in the killings of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., near St. Louis, and 43-year-old Eric Garner in Staten Island, N.Y.

Schultz has met with almost 2,000 Starbucks employees since then in cities hit most directly by racial tension and anti-police brutality protests in the last year, including Oakland, St. Louis, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Seattle, where Starbucks is based. Cognizant of what a powder keg the issue of race is, Starbucks says its baristas will be under no obligation to engage with customers on the topic. The goal is simply to foster discussion and an exchange of ideas.

The potential exists for arguments to break out (not for nothing this topic is the third rail of U.S. politics), and some may fairly question any move that could potentially slow in-store service. But Schultz has never been a wallflower when it comes to political debates and social activism. In 2013, he led a petition-based push urging Washington politicians to end the federal government shutdown. That year, he also wrote an open letter asking gun owners to refrain from bringing their guns into stores even they were allowed. Two years earlier, Starbucks launched a fund, fueled by the sale of $5 bracelets, to spur U.S. job creation. The company has also pledged to hire 10,000 veterans and military spouses over a five-year period.

And he has also not been shy to slam critics of Starbucks’ or his political stances, including shareholders. Two years ago, after an investor at its annual shareholder meeting said the company’s support for a marriage equality bill in Washington state had hurt sales after a boycott by an advocacy group, Schultz invited him to sell his Starbucks shares if he felt he could find another stock with as a high a return rate.

Mark Zuckerberg, chief of Facebook, which is updating its guidelines on acceptable content.Credit Adnan Abidi/Reuters

Updated, 2:45 p.m. |

With 1.39 billion active users worldwide, Facebook’s social network is the closest thing we have to a universal communication platform. And people post — or try to post — just about everything you can imagine.

On Monday, the company clarified its community standards to give its users more guidance about what types of posts are not allowed on the service.

Facebook walks a delicate line when it tries to ban violent or offensive content without suppressing the free sharing of information that it says it wants to encourage. Its audience is vast, with a huge variance in age, cultural values and laws across the globe. Yet despite its published guidelines, the reasoning behind Facebook’s decisions to block or allow content are often opaque and inconsistent.

For example, the company flip-flopped repeatedly on whether to allow beheading videos on the service before recently deciding to ban them. In December, it blocked a page in Russia that was promoting an antigovernment protest, then allowed copycat pages to stay up. And in October, it created an exception to its requirement that people use their real names on the service when it allowed San Francisco’s drag queens to use their stage names while continuing to crack down on others using false names.

“We’re trying to strike the balance based on the way our community works,” Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global policy management, said in an interview. “The landscape is complicated.”

The company hopes that more specific explanation of its rules will take some of the mystery out of what it will and will not allow.

Terrorist organizations like the Islamic State have long been banned from the service. But supporting or praising groups involved in “violent, criminal or hateful behavior” is also banned, the updated rules say.

Threatening people with physical or financial harm, or bullying them by posting items intended to degrade or shame them, is also prohibited. So is anything that encourages suicide or eating disorders.

Facebook has always banned pornography and most other nudity, but it is now diving into the nuances. “We remove photographs of people displaying genitals or focusing in on fully exposed buttocks,” it says. It also restricts some images of female breasts if the nipple shows, “but we always allow photos of women actively engaged in breast-feeding or showing breasts with post-mastectomy scarring.” Photos of paintings, sculptures and other art that depicts nude figures are also fine.

The company is for the first time explicitly banning content promoting sexual violence or exploitation, including so-called revenge porn, which it defines as intimate images “shared in revenge or without permission from the people in the images.” (Twitter has also updated its rules to forbid revenge porn.)

One thing that has not changed: Facebook has no plans to automatically scan for and remove potentially offensive content, Ms. Bickert said.

Facebook will still rely on users to report violations of the standards. Ms. Bickert said that the company had review teams working at all hours of the day around the globe, and that every report was examined by one of them before a decision was made.

The process can take time — typically 48 hours on matters of safety, she said. That may not be fast enough for some people in an era where graphic content can go viral in minutes. Twitter, which is a much more public forum, has come under fire from women’s advocates and antiterror groups for not responding quickly enough to reports of abusive or violent tweets.

But Facebook wants to take into account the full context of a post, Ms. Bickert said. For example, a victim of a violent attack might post images on Facebook as a way of raising public awareness. “Sometimes the best way to share information about atrocities in the world is Facebook,” she said. “We recognize that is a very challenging issue.”

Facebook’s rulings can also be appealed. “If a person’s account is suspended, those appeals are read by real people who can look into the specifics,” she said.

Ms. Bickert said that clarifying its rules helped not only Facebook users but also the people who reviewed possible violations to decide what was permissible. “We can only do this if we have objective rules,” she said.

Governments also ask Facebook to take down posts. In conjunction with the updated community standards, the company published on Monday its latest transparency report, which discloses country-by-country information on government requests for user data and the removal of content.

In the report, Facebook says that in the second half of 2014, it restricted 9,707 pieces of content for violating local laws, up 11 percent from the first half of the year. Of those, India requested the most takedowns, with 5,832, and Turkey was not far behind with 3,624. No content was restricted in the United States based on government requests.

The number of government requests for account data increased slightly, to 35,051, compared with 34,946 in the first half. The United States was at the top of the list, making 14,274 requests for information on 21,731 Facebook accounts, with the company agreeing to turn over information in 79 percent of the cases.

“As difficult questions arise about the limits of what people can share, we have a single guiding principle: We want to give the most voice to the most people,” Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s co-founder and chief executive, wrote in a post that accompanied the report.

“Some people say we should ignore government orders requiring us to restrict people’s voice, even if that means the whole service would be blocked in those countries. I don’t think that’s right,” he said. “I believe we have a responsibility to the millions of people in these countries who rely on Facebook to stay in touch with their friends and family every day. If we ignored a lawful government order and then we were blocked, all of these people’s voices would be muted, and whatever content the government believed was illegal would be blocked anyway.”

“It’s tempting to think of free expression and having a voice as black and white — either you have it or you don’t,” Mr. Zuckerberg said. “But giving people a voice, like most things in our society, is something that we must make incremental progress towards.”

As the US debates expanding its campaign against the Islamic State beyond Iraq and Syria, the leading US civil liberties group is intensifying its efforts to force transparency about lethal US counterterrorism strikes and authorities.

On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) will file a disclosure lawsuit for secret Obama administration documents specifying, among other things, the criteria for placement on the so-called “kill list” for drone strikes and other deadly force.

Information sought by the ACLU includes long-secret analyses establishing the legal basis for what the administration terms its “targeted killing program” and the process by which the administration determines that civilians are unlikely to be killed before launching a strike, as well as verification mechanisms afterward to establish if the strike in fact has caused civilian deaths.

The suit, to be filed in a New York federal court, also seeks basic data the Obama administration has withheld about “the number and identities of individuals killed or injured” in counterterrorism strikes, according to the ACLU filing. In February 2013, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who favors the drone strikes, estimated they had killed 4,700 people.

“Over the last few years, the US government has used armed drones to kill thousands of people, including hundreds of civilians. The public should know who the government is killing, and why it’s killing them,” Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director for the ACLU, told the Guardian.

The ACLU suit proceeds after the Obama administration disclosed none of the lethal counterterrorism documentation through a Freedom of Information Act request the civil liberties group launched in October 2013. According to the new lawsuit, the departments of state, justice and defense, as well as the CIA, have stonewalled the ACLU’s requests for nearly 18 months.

Advertisement

Recent legal history suggests the ACLU is in for an uphill court struggle. The Obama administration, which has called itself the most transparent in history, has thus far repelled or delayed ACLU lawsuits for disclosure around drone strikes and the 2011 assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen and al-Qaida propagandist. Additionally, the administration is fighting the ACLU on the legality of its bulk surveillance activities and to prevent the release of thousands of graphic photographs detailing Bush-era torture by the CIA and military.

Yet the administration has seen the courts chip away at its blanket denials of documents sought by the ACLU. Most of the intelligence community’s disclosures of surveillance memos since Edward Snowden’s revelations have followed the administration’s courtroom losses to the ACLU and other civil-liberties groups. In June, the second circuit court of appeals forced the Department of Justice to release much of a critical 2010 memo blessing the killing of Awlaki. (The ACLU is seeking the release of 10 more major intelligence memos related to targeted killing.)

Colleen McMahon, the federal judge who initially denied that memo’s release in 2013, ruled against the ACLU with regret, writing that loopholes in transparency laws benefitting the government left her “stuck in a paradoxical situation” that she likened to Alice in Wonderland. Since the new lethal-force lawsuit is related to the Awlaki one, McMahon may be the federal judge who hears it.

The new ACLU suit seeks to pierce the veneer of assurances by President Obama that the drone strikes and other lethal counterterrorism practices his administration has embraced have been restricted.

Obama announced he was raising the still-undisclosed standards for launching drone strikes in May 2013 and insisting on “strong oversight of all lethal action”. He said future strikes would require “near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured”.

His White House portrayed the acknowledgment of the strikes as a transparency milestone, but the administration still refused to disclose the processes and legal memoranda underpinning the speech.

While estimates indicate that the drone strikes, launched by both the CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command, have declined since Obama’s speech, a November report by the human-rights group Reprieve found that Obama’s drone strikes had killed 1,147 people in pursuit of only 41 men, prompting questions about the rigor of the process employed by the administration to launch attacks.

Isis war to extend far beyond Iraq and Syria under Obama’s proposed plan

Read more

Obama’s 2013 speech and the drone-strike decline also occurred before the 2014 rise of the Islamic State and the renewed US war in the skies over Iraq. Not only are Predator and Reaper drones used in airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, but the administration’s desired legal authorization against Isis would permit global targeting of the jihadist army and its far-flung affiliates – which now include Boko Haram in Nigeria as well as allies in Libya, the Sinai peninsula and beyond.

That authorization “wisely does not include any geographical restriction”, argued the new defense secretary, Ashton Carter, in congressional testimony last week, “because [Isis] already shows signs of metastasizing outside of Syria and Iraq”.

Jaffer told the Guardian there could be no “legitimate justification” for persistent official stonewalling on civilian casualties and the procedures by which people, including US citizens, can find themselves on a secret government “kill list”.

“The categorical secrecy surrounding the drone program doesn’t serve any legitimate security interest. It serves only to skew public debate, to obscure the human costs of the program, and to shield decision-makers from accountability,” Jaffer said.

A blogger known for his atheist views has been stabbed to death in Bangladesh, in the latest of a series of attacks on independent writers in the developing south Asian nation. Washiqur Rahman, 27, died of serious injuries inflicted in the assault on Monday morning in Dhaka, the capital. Police have arrested two men for […]

by Seth Fast growth comes from overwhelming the smallest possible audience with a product or service that so delights that they insist that their friends and colleagues use it. And hypergrowth is a version of the same thing, except those friends and colleagues quickly become even bigger fans, and tell even more people. Often, […]

Many organizations do not think about computer security until there is a breach or information being leaked for malicious purposes. Creating insecure passwords such as your name or a common word, could compromise your information or network. The video gives you some basic principles to mitigate security risks of your information.

Cybercrime Goes Mobile Thanks To Insecure Mobile Banking, mCommerce and mWallet Apps By Mark Laich Millions of consumers no longer visit a bank to deposit checks or conduct financial transactions. Instead they rely on the convenience of using their mobile devices to send money, view account balances and bank online. The same is true for […]